Spoofing: the most toxic practice that poisons digital advertising
Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2025 8:41 am
When an advertiser buys a space on television to showcase his brand, he may be concerned about numerous factors.
For example, whether their large outlay of money will result in sales, whether viewers actually saw the advert or used the break to go channel surfing or open the fridge, or whether they liked the piece. But what they can be sure of is that their advertisement has been broadcast.
Something that does not happen in the digital world where "the more you pay, the more you get" is not the norm, nor is it common.
This is what Mark Ritson makes clear in an article in The Australian, where he exposes an incident that occurred with the Financial Times. The media outlet was the victim of the frustration of an advertiser who was angry at the poor performance of its programmatic investment.
“The brand thought it had bought a hompage takeover on the day and was expecting more impact,” explains Anthony Hitchings, digital advertising operations director at FT, although in reality “not a single ad had appeared.” This was a fraud known as “spoofing” and has become a common practice in the programmatic landscape.
Following this episode, the Financial Times launched an investigation and algeria phone number found that there were up to 300 fraudulent operators offering fake ads on their website through 15 different exchange platforms.
And it is a very profitable business that generates 1.7 million dollars a month at the expense of marketers' investments.
But there is perhaps one case that takes on greater relevance and that is that of Methbot , the largest fraud in the industry, located in Russia, which is responsible for 200 to 300 million fraudulent video impressions per day, between 3 and 5 million dollars of fraudulent income per day and more than 1 billion dollars per year in income from online video fraud.
Among the 6,000 premium publishers it replicated were major media outlets Vogue, ESPN and Fox News.
And although some market players, such as Google, are making efforts to put an end to this scourge, the truth is that the solution, which requires collaboration from all parties, is still far from being achieved.
Firstly, because there is no certainty that all platforms adhere to a common system that guarantees the legitimacy of publishers, since, after all, they make money from all the inventory they sell, regardless of whether it is real or not.
Secondly, because fraud has a special ability to always be one step ahead of the good work of the industry and, as always, where the law is made, the trap is set.
Thus, in this scenario and with technology being a true double-edged sword for brands, the path towards transparency is still a rocky path.
For example, whether their large outlay of money will result in sales, whether viewers actually saw the advert or used the break to go channel surfing or open the fridge, or whether they liked the piece. But what they can be sure of is that their advertisement has been broadcast.
Something that does not happen in the digital world where "the more you pay, the more you get" is not the norm, nor is it common.
This is what Mark Ritson makes clear in an article in The Australian, where he exposes an incident that occurred with the Financial Times. The media outlet was the victim of the frustration of an advertiser who was angry at the poor performance of its programmatic investment.
“The brand thought it had bought a hompage takeover on the day and was expecting more impact,” explains Anthony Hitchings, digital advertising operations director at FT, although in reality “not a single ad had appeared.” This was a fraud known as “spoofing” and has become a common practice in the programmatic landscape.
Following this episode, the Financial Times launched an investigation and algeria phone number found that there were up to 300 fraudulent operators offering fake ads on their website through 15 different exchange platforms.
And it is a very profitable business that generates 1.7 million dollars a month at the expense of marketers' investments.
But there is perhaps one case that takes on greater relevance and that is that of Methbot , the largest fraud in the industry, located in Russia, which is responsible for 200 to 300 million fraudulent video impressions per day, between 3 and 5 million dollars of fraudulent income per day and more than 1 billion dollars per year in income from online video fraud.
Among the 6,000 premium publishers it replicated were major media outlets Vogue, ESPN and Fox News.
And although some market players, such as Google, are making efforts to put an end to this scourge, the truth is that the solution, which requires collaboration from all parties, is still far from being achieved.
Firstly, because there is no certainty that all platforms adhere to a common system that guarantees the legitimacy of publishers, since, after all, they make money from all the inventory they sell, regardless of whether it is real or not.
Secondly, because fraud has a special ability to always be one step ahead of the good work of the industry and, as always, where the law is made, the trap is set.
Thus, in this scenario and with technology being a true double-edged sword for brands, the path towards transparency is still a rocky path.